Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.3
Site Design by Sekimori

« Gunsmiths in danger | Main | 9/11 and bureaucracy »

Brady Campaign--fall of Berlin Wall will live in infamy?

Posted by David Hardy · 30 March 2006 05:08 PM

Update: Countertop links to this WashPo interview of the Bradys.

It leads off with a bit of a slip. At least, I think it was a bit of a slip. When asked about Reagan's legacy, the Bradys reply: "I think the coming down of the Berlin Wall will always live in infamy." (I am not kidding, that's what it says).

Some interesting quotes:

"We do not support gun bans unless a locality has voted it in themselves." (Hmm... I guess that means they don't support one city trying to ban guns in a different city. That excludes a lot).

In answer to a question about why then they supported a *Federal ban* on "assault weapons: "I was speaking of bans on all firearms."

To a question about states liberalizing CCW: "We believe that permits for carrying concealed weapons should be issued only if the local law enforcement or courts approve."

· antigun groups

9 Comments | Leave a comment

Kevin Stroup | March 30, 2006 8:40 PM | Reply

These people want to ban all guns. The fact they cannot even be honest about it (waffeling) makes me dislike them even more. Maoist pigs.

ChrisPer | March 30, 2006 9:46 PM | Reply

Kevin, get a grip. They say they are are REAGAN fans except for the guns issue.

Maoists? Eeeew.

Alcibiades | March 31, 2006 2:09 AM | Reply

Does that mean they should only be giving letter grades to towns/cities and not to States? After all, if only the locality matters, then the States should be ignored (except as far as enabling the localities to pass their own laws).

dave | March 31, 2006 4:08 AM | Reply

"We believe that permits for carrying concealed weapons should be issued only if the local law enforcement or courts approve."

The people the Second Amendment is designed to protect us against should they usurp power are the same people who should be telling us who can have guns? Brady Bunch: 1, Logic: 0.

J&S Brady | March 31, 2006 7:30 AM | Reply

"James and Sarah Brady: In the first place, lets make it clear we don't want restrictions on law abiding citizens beyond making sure that all gun purchasers undergo a complete and comprehensive background check."

Even though a concealed weapons permit (CCW) requires a much more " complete and comprehensive background check" than required by our Brady Bill, we're still against it.

Robert Racansky | March 31, 2006 7:46 AM | Reply

It leads off with a bit of a slip. At least, I think it was a bit of a slip. When asked about Reagan's legacy, the Bradys reply: "I think the coming down of the Berlin Wall will always live in infamy." (I am not kidding, that's what it says).

Yes, it's a slip. I'm sure "live in infamy" was meant to modify "the Berlin Wall," not "the coming down of." The grammar is no worse than that exhibited by President Bush (or many of us on the 'net) on a daily basis.

It happens in spontaneous unplanned converstations to all of us. In some cases, the media will devote a dispraportionate amount of coverage every time certain people do this, which is how memes like "Dan Quayle is stupid" or "George Bush is stupid" get started.

I'm no fan of the Bradys. But unfortunately, our side is going to make a big deal out of this: "See, they're really Communists!". While it may make some people feel as smug as Michael Moore, and whip our supporters into a frenzy for a short while, it doesn't really help our cause at all to blow this out of proportion.

Brerarnold | March 31, 2006 8:36 AM | Reply

"... unless the courts or law enforcement approves." What, the approval of the legislature isn't good enough?

Bitstream | March 31, 2006 9:36 AM | Reply

"... unless the courts or law enforcement approves." What, the approval of the legislature isn't good enough?


Licensing a right is BS. What part of "...shall not be infringed." do people not understand????

ranger Nick | March 31, 2006 1:44 PM | Reply

I like that "MAOIST PIG" name. It fits those "BOLO's just fine.

Leave a comment